MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W7005664432

Re-thinking Housing and Mobility – A European Living Lab for Sustainable Mobility in Munich

2017· article· en· W7005664432 on OpenAlexaboutno aff

Bibliographic record

VenueREAL CORP Repository (University of Southampton) · 2017
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldBiochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology
TopicCell Image Analysis Techniques
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsQuarter (Canadian coin)Sustainable developmentSustainable transportQuality (philosophy)Sustainable growth rateSustainable citySustainabilityPersonal mobilityPublic transport
DOInot available

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

This paper aims to describe the vision and implementation approach of a sustainable and innovative mobility
\nand housing concept of a city district at the pericentral edge of Munich. Within the European CIVITAS
\ninitiative, the ECCENTRIC project demonstrates an innovative approach to mobilize residents by offering
\nintermodal mobility and mobility on demand. With around 8000 new inhabitants and 12,000 new employees
\nwithin the next years, the transport system in the Munich living lab Domagkpark and Parkstadt Schwabing
\nneeds an integrative and innovative approach to ensure a functioning, ecologically compatible and socially
\nacceptable mobility supply. Central objective is to increase quality of life in the district through a substantial
\nroll-out of innovative mobility solutions, that reduce the use (and number) of private cars.With the
\nimplementation of various project measures in the field of sustainable and shared mobility, mobility
\nmanagement, city logistics and road security, a new model quarter for sustainable urban development and
\ncompatible mobility will be development. Successful research findings aim to be implemented in future
\nnewly-built quarters of Munich and replicated in other European cities.

Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.

How this classification was reachedexpand

Full frame distilled prediction

Teacher imitation

Not calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.282
Threshold uncertainty score0.682

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0010.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.001
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

Machine scores (provisional)

The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.

Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.

Opus teacher head0.009
GPT teacher head0.229
Teacher spread0.220 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designObservational
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".

Quick stats

Citations0
Published2017
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueREAL CORP Repository (University of Southampton)Same topicCell Image Analysis TechniquesFrench-language works237,207